IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL CASE NO. 71 OF 2011 REPUBLIC……………………………………….….PROSECUTOR VERSUS SIMON MBUGUA NJUGUNA ………......……………….ACCUSED RULING The accused, Simon Mbugua Njuguna is charged with murder contrary to section 203 as read with Section 204 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge are that on 7 th May 2009 at Kiwanja Village, in Kasarani Division, within Nairobi County murdered Gilbert Nyaga Njue. He denied the charge when arraigned in court on 26th September, 2011 and was remanded in custody. The prosecution has called a total of 6 witnesses. The totality of the prosecution testimony points to the accused having been at the scene of murder on the material date. PW1 Samuel Kinungi Njenga testified to having heard screams and on approaching the scene he heard the voice of the accused who is his uncle and who together with others were assaulting the deceased. PW5 conducted a post mortem on the deceased and confirmed that he died as a result of multiple injuries due to blunt force trauma. His evidence is consistent with the testimony of PW1 and PW4 who testified that the deceased had sustained multiple visible injuries. At the close of the prosecution case both prosecution and the defence filed submissions which I have carefully considered along with the prosecution evidence on record. From my analysis of the evidence on record as outlined above, I find that the prosecution has established a prima facie case to warrant putting the accused on his defence. I find Simon Mbugua Njuguna has a case to answer. I require him to make his defence as per Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Ruling delivered and dated at Nairobi this 18th day of September, 2014 R. LAGAT - KORIR JUDGE In the presence of: ……………………………..: Court clerk ……………………………..: Accused ……………………………..: For Accused ……………………………..: For the State
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.